The battle against illegal imports in the agri-food sector is entering a new phase, with the state attempting to move control from the realm of complaints and sampling to systematic data analysis. The Ministries of Rural Development & Food and Digital Governance are designing an integrated agri-food traceability system, attempting to tackle one of the most persistent and corrosive problems of the Greek food market, which is none other than origin adulteration.
The illegal “Greekization” of imported products is not just a commercial irregularity. It is a phenomenon that distorts the conditions of competition, puts economic pressure on legal producers, damages the credibility of Greek products on international markets and ultimately undermines one of the most basic comparative advantages of Greek agri-food: the reputation of quality and authenticity.
“Greekization is not just a market distortion. It is a practice that does injustice to the Greek producer, squeezes his income and ultimately damages the credibility of Greek products. When, for example, imported potatoes are presented as Greek, when honey or meat are dubbed Greek without being Greek, or when products from abroad are sold as domestic production, the producer who abides by the rules is always the one who suffers,” Minister of Digital Governance Dimitris Papastergiou told APE-MPA.
He concluded: “This is exactly what we are coming to address in collaboration with the relevant Ministry of Rural Development and Food. Through the cross-checking of production, sales, import and export data, to identify any irregularities. That is, if someone declares specific production, but shows disproportionate sales of Greek products, the systems will be able to detect it. Our goal is to make controls fairer, more targeted and more effective, protecting the real producer and enhancing consumer confidence in Greek products.”
As Greek production attempts to strengthen its position in international markets, ensuring product reliability takes on strategic importance. For the consumer, the label ‘Greek product’ is associated with specific quality characteristics, local production, traditional practices and a sense of security. For the producer, it is a crucial element of added value. However, when products that appear to be Greek but are not, the damage is not limited to an unfair commercial practice. The very credibility of the system is being eroded.
The planned response does not rely on increasing bureaucracy or creating new obligations for producers and businesses. The new model aspires to make use of data that already exist in different public information systems and which until now remain fragmented. Through interoperability, databases of production, imports, exports, invoices and trade transactions will be linked, creating a dynamic picture of the movement of each product on the market.
The essential change lies in moving from piecemeal control to systematic prevention. Instead of the authorities looking for infringements after the fact, the system will automatically detect inconsistencies and imbalances before there is even a complaint or a physical check. Its logic is simple: when the available data does not “agree” with each other, a risk assessment mechanism is triggered.
The example of the meat market clearly illustrates how this works. If a trader buys a documented 10 000 kg of Greek lamb from domestic farmers, but appears to have 25 000 kg of ‘Greek lamb’ on the market, then the system can automatically see that the equation does not balance. If there are no imports or other legitimate sources of supply to justify the difference, the case is recorded as high risk and forwarded as a priority for audit.
The philosophy of this approach is of particular importance to the functioning of the audit mechanism. Checks will no longer be carried out horizontally or randomly, but will be targeted, where the chances of irregularity are higher and the impact on the market greater. This is essentially a form of “digital risk profiling” through which available resources will be directed more effectively.
The interesting thing is that the system itself will evolve as the volume and quality of data increases. The more information that is cross-referenced, the greater the accuracy in detecting discrepancies and the greater the ability to detect complex forms of fraud. Artificial intelligence and algorithmic analysis will not replace human control, but will act as a prioritisation and prioritisation tool.
The second dimension of the plan is about the consumer himself. Traceability is seen not only as a market control mechanism, but also as a transparency tool. Through an online platform or mobile application, citizens will be able to verify the origin of a product, to be informed about the producer, the production unit, the region of origin and the batch to which the product they buy belongs.
This possibility may substantially change the consumer’s relationship with the food. The greater the importance consumers attach to the origin and quality of food, the greater the need for immediate and reliable information. At the same time, a deterrent environment is created for those who attempt to exploit the reputation of Greek products through adulteration or false claims.
This is a model that, if fully implemented, will change the way in which control is exercised in the food market, shifting the emphasis from physical control to data cross-checking. However, the project is not just about technology. It touches the core of the way Greece perceives the protection of its production identity. In an international competition where authenticity is an economic asset, the ability to document provenance can become a critical tool for commercial goodwill.
The logic of the plan, as reflected in the government’s design, is that Greek agri-food cannot rely solely on the reputation it has already achieved. It needs mechanisms to prove, transparently and reliably, that the product that reaches the consumer is indeed what it claims to be. And for the first time, the battle against counterfeiting seems to be moving from the realm of suspicion to the realm of documentation.
.
